Badeen v. PAR, Inc.
834 N.W.2d 85
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Forwarding companies contract with lending institutions to handle collections and hire licensed repossession agents to recover collateral.
- Plaintiffs allege forwarding companies must be licensed as collection agencies under the Occupational Code and MRCPA and that their unlicensed status harms plaintiff businesses.
- Plaintiffs filed a 2010 complaint seeking class certification and various reliefs, including injunctions and tort claims.
- Amendments substituted defendants and altered counts; subsequent motions addressed class action timing and legality of licensing.
- Trial court striking the class certification motion and granting summary disposition against plaintiffs led to appeals; the court affirmed in part and reversed in part on timing but affirmed on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of class certification under MCR 3.501(B). | Badeen: clock runs from any amended complaint; original filing did not control. | PAR: clock runs from the original complaint; amendments do not reset the clock. | Amended complaint restarts 91-day period; certification timely filed. |
| Whether forwarders are collection agencies under the Occupational Code. | Plaintiffs: forwarders are engaged in collection-related activities and require licensing. | Forwarders are not directly or indirectly engaged in collecting or repossessing; not collection agencies. | Forwarder defendants not collection agencies; no licensing violation. |
| Whether MRCPA and Occupational Code violations were shown. | Lenders/forwarders violated licensing requirements. | No violation since forwarders are not collection agencies and MRCPA does not apply. | No violations found; summary disposition affirmed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vyletel-Rivard v Rivard, 286 Mich App 13 (2009) (statutory interpretation and court rule analysis guidance)
- Rambin v Allstate Ins Co, 297 Mich App 679 (2012) (laws interpreting statutes and rules; de novo review standards)
- Hill v City of Warren, 276 Mich App 299 (2007) (timing rules for class actions and amendments)
- Asset Acceptance Corp v Robinson, 244 Mich App 728 (2001) (interpretation of “indirectly engaged” in collection context)
- Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) (statutory interpretation and article distinctions)